| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Use test_framework.util.bytes_to_hex_str() instead of bytes.hex() that
new in Python 3.5, to support minimum version of Python(test).
|
|
currentblocktx
fa178a6385 [rpc] mining: Omit uninitialized currentblockweight, currentblocktx (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Previously we'd report "0", which could be mistaken for a valid number. E.g. the number of transactions is 0 or the block weight is 0, whatever that means.
Tree-SHA512: ee94ab203a329e272211b726f4c23edec4b09c650ec363b77fd59ad9264165d73064f78ebb9e11b5c2c543b73c157752410a307655560531c7d5444d203aa0ea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calling getblocktemplate without the segwit rule specified is most
likely a client error, since it results in lower fees for the miner.
Prevent this client error by failing getblocktemplate if called without
the segwit rule specified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
skipping .Addreses #14216. Changed get_deterministic_priv_key() to a
named tuple
|
|
fa6ab8ada1 rpc: Return more specific reject reason for submitblock (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The second commit in #13439 made the `TODO` in the first commit impossible to solve.
The meaning of `fNewBlock` changed from "This is the first time we process this block" to "We are about to write the new *valid* block".
So whenever `fNewBlock` is true, the block was valid. And whenever the `fNewBlock` is false, the block is either valid or invalid. If it was valid and not new, we know it is a `"duplicate"`. In all other cases, the `BIP22ValidationResult()` will return the reason why it is invalid.
Tree-SHA512: 4b6edf7a912339c3acb0fccfabbdd6d812a0321fb1639c244c2714e58dc119aa2b8c6bf8f7d61ea609a1b861bbc23f920370fcf989c48452721e259a8ce93d24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
